Similarly, the way the rules are written, temporary changes to mental ability scores only affect the DCs of spells and channel energy, not the DCs of any spell-like or supernatural abilities.
Personally, I don't think that makes sense, and I rule accordingly.
Neat. Are there any faqs about this?
Neat. Are there any faqs about this?
No need for a FAQ - there's really no disagreement about how the rules work, it's just that many people haven't read them and continue to use either intuitive guesses or 3.5 rules.
There's some room for disagreement as to whether the way the rules work is intentional. Sometimes, the people writing a given hunk of rules text just didn't think about that.
You want the devs to change the existing rules because they produce bad results? Good luck with that.
When it comes to not affecting carrying capacity, I believe this is very much the intent, to reduce bookkeeping. I don't agree with it and don't use it in my game, but I think it's by design.
When it comes to not affecting the DC of supernatural etc abilities however, it may very well be overlooked.
You want the devs to change the existing rules because they produce bad results? Good luck with that.
There's some room for disagreement as to whether the way the rules work is intentional. Sometimes, the people writing a given hunk of rules text just didn't think about that.
There's a difference between asking to change a rule because you don't like it, and asking if the rules are meant to be the way they are. For an obvious example, look at prone shooter before the errata: It didn't do zilch. That was clearly not the intent of the rules, and when the devs where made aware of the feats uselessness, they changed it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for temporary bonuses can get downright weird at times, and do come with some consequences that I can't believe are intended.
As for the latter, consider the Alchemist: practically every class feature depends on intelligence, yet temporary changes (bonuses, penalties, damage) don't impact them at all.
As for the former, consider temporary dexterity bonuses vs. permanent ones, for example. When you've lost your dexterity bonus to AC for some reason, you lose the advantage of your permanent dexterity bonus along with your regular dexterity bonus, because it's part of that. Temporary bonuses still do provide a bonus to AC though. This means that a belt of incredible dexterity will perform better in that situation during the first 24 hours you wear it. Downright weird.
The more counterintuitive consequences of these rules are house ruled into shape in my playing circle.
So a witch with Fox's Cunning does not increase the DC of her hexes? Huh. Live and learn.
This is one of those rule that most DMS in house games choose to ignore for exactly that reason. It tends to really decrease the worth of temporary stats
Yikes.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Don't forget that the same applies to ability damage, not just to ability bonuses. As the rules stand, the DC of hexes, spell-like abilities, and similar things don't change at all no matter how much ability damage you take, even though the DCs for spells (and channel energy) do.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
On the other hand it can work in your favour. Say a character has a Dexterity of 18 (+4) but is wearing Chainmail (Max Dex Bonus of +2) and is affected by a Cat's Grace spell giving a +4 Dexterity Bonus. In this instance the character would get a +2 to AC even with the armour (so AC would be 10 + 2 of Dex Bonus +2 from Cat's Grace + 6 for chainmail = 20).
The way temporary bonuses work in Pathfinder, they don't increase Dexterity but instead provide a bonus to Dexterity related stats including AC.
But make that spell permanent and after 24 hours the bonus to AC would be gone as then you have Dex of 22 and a Dex bonus of +6 which is then limited by the armour (so AC would be 10 + 2 of Dex Bonus +6 for chainmail = 18).
Oddly, ability damage drops the Channel Energy DC, but temporary bonuses don't boost it.
Yes, they do. One of the bonuses granted by a temporary increase to Charisma is to increase the channel energy DC.
That is, however, the only such case listed, even though there is a variety of spell-like abilities and other abilities that have DCs within the Core Rulebook.
Hopefully the FAQ-label in this thread can lead to SKR's thoughts making it into the official FAQ.
While it doesn't make much of a difference for me personally, considering I already run it the same way he suggests, it would be helpful to have something official to point to when people ask for advice.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I looked at the pregenerated barbarian Amiri and her +4 str from rage gave her +3 damage on her 2H weapon damage, but the rules section by RAW meant that was incorrect as well.
Good spot! I knew about several of the problems that stem from how ability bonuses and penalties are handled in PF but this is a new one - by RAW you get half the Ability Bonus as a bonus to the damage roll, whether you are using an off hand weapon, one handed weapon or two handed weapon.
So, in D&D 3.5 a character with Strength 14 under the effect of a Bull's Strength spell (+4 enhancement bonus to Strength) would have the following damage modifiers:
Longsword in offhand: d8+2 (str of 18/+4 halved)
Longsword in man hand: d8+4 (str of 18/+4)
Longsword used two handed: d8+6 (str of 18/+4 x1.5)
Whereas in PF that is:
Longsword in offhand: d8+3 (str of 14/+2, halved, +2 for Bull's Strength)
Longsword in man hand: d8+4 (str of 14/+2 +2 for Bull's Strength)
Longsword used two handed: d8+5 (str of 14/+2, x1.5, +2 for Bull's Strength)
So yeah, the PF way is better for two-weapon fighters! :)
|
|
Getting a temporary bonus of +4 Str adds +2 to your Str bonus to damage... which then still gets buffed by 50% by 2-h mechanics. So the player was correct in this scenario and the GM was out of line. That's a paddlin'.
I believe Rerednaw is correct actually (see my example above), a +4 Strength bonus applies a +2 to Damage rolls - that's it, nothing more, nothing less. It does not apply a +2 to your Strength Modifier for determining Damage bonus to Damage rolls.
Ability Score Bonuses
Some spells and abilities increase your ability scores. Ability score increases with a duration of 1 day or less give only temporary bonuses. For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
When the RAI is so blatantly obvious, why even care if the RAWiest RAWy-RAW can be interpreted in another way? That way lies "dead people can act normally".
|
|
This situation actually happened.
My wizard got cut off from the party and got locked behind a portcullis. Without Disable Device, my one way to escape was a Strength check to force it open, but with a DC 25, not even Taking 20 let me do it.
Fortunately, I had Bull's Strength prepared, so I cast it on myself and became "temporarily strong" enough to lift that darned gate.
Except now I realize Bull's Strength doesn't make you stronger, as it doesn't affect Strength checks.
I'm cool with Carrying Capacity not being affected, for bookkeeping peace. But Ability Checks...
RAW are clear. But I'll FAQ because I have the feeling that this wasn't the intention.
When the RAI is so blatantly obvious, why even care if the RAWiest RAWy-RAW can be interpreted in another way? That way lies "dead people can act normally".They can... and they prefer to be referred to as Undead Americans.
Oh I didn't mean undead. I meant dead. As in, the rules doesn't prevent you from acting while dead unless you where unconscious before dying (unconsciousness prevents acting). If you die of say constitution damage or a death effect, or damage so large you go from positive HP to dead in a single blow, by RAW you can still act normally. But that was mostly a side note.
What I meant in this circumstance was:
When the text specify you add the bonus to damage if it's strength based, and there are published examples of altering the damage bonus based on twohandedness, it is crystal clear that the intent is to treat the bonus as if it had come from a higher strength modifier.
|
|
Occam's Razor... all things being equal, the simplest solution should be taken. We have two possible situations here:
1) Ability Bonus to Str adds to the damage bonus provided by Str, which is then modified by the off-hand/two-handed factors.
2) Ability Bonus to Str adds an untyped damage bonus separate from Str bonus which is not affected by off-hand/two-handed factors.
Both are equally plausible. However, stat blocks show that Paizo officially uses the first method. Therefore, that should be presumed to be the correct method. Your beliefs are inconsequential in the face of actual evidence.
Actual Evidence? The RAW ruling supports method 2, does that count as evidence? Now if there is a disparity between the RAW and the examples, you believe the examples should take precedent. Me? If the examples are different I think it makes it FAQ worthy at most.
But seriously why the hell didn't Paizo just keep ability bonuses, penalties and damage working as they did in 3.5 rather than try to change it in the hopes of helping with book keeping but actually causing many other issues and then making out that the RAI isn't what they meant by the changes but is actually how 3.5 should work?
Its one of the reasons I still prefer 3.5 over PF.
They don't want us swapping items that boost stats and immediately getting all of the benefits. That is why the rule is the way it is.
|
|
Reading. Honestly, kids these days.
Actual Evidence?...
I am not sure whether you are trying to be smart, be insulting, make yourself feel superior or something else, but I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question.
You cite stat blocks as "actual evidence" that the RAI is that temporary Strength bonuses should be considered a bonus to Strength for determining damage bonuses (i.e. your method 1).
I asked whether the RAW count as "actual evidence" for method 2 i.e. that "Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on [...] weapon damage rolls" (that is a quote of RAW BTW), i.e. its an untyped bonus to Damage.
So, do you simply discount the RAW (despite it being fairly explicit IMHO) in favour of some stat blocks? Or could you at least see that there is a conflict between RAW and stat blocks, and therefore that it is worthy of a FAQ?
|
|
They don't want us swapping items that boost stats and immediately getting all of the benefits. That is why the rule is the way it is.
Ironically though, for some situations it actually makes temporary bonuses better than permanent bonuses, e.g. Temporary Dexterity Bonus enhances AC even if armour's Max Dex bonus would prevent a Permanent Dexterity Bonus having an effect.
Overall, it just seems to produce so many inconsistencies and weird situations that it seems more trouble than it is worth (to me at least).
It was a bad call of them to change how bonuses work so much. It was an understandable call, and I can't blame them for not foreseeing the consequences (and some things have been made simpler) but it was still a bad call.
I think it could have been a good call, if they instead of making a list of what it affects said "it works like an increased strength except" and then had a list of what it _doesn't_ affect.
That way the default would be that it works like a strength bonus and like 95% of the issues would be solved.
They don't want us swapping items that boost stats and immediately getting all of the benefits. That is why the rule is the way it is.Ironically though, for some situations it actually makes temporary bonuses better than permanent bonuses, e.g. Temporary Dexterity Bonus enhances AC even if armour's Max Dex bonus would prevent a Permanent Dexterity Bonus having an effect.
Overall, it just seems to produce so many inconsistencies and weird situations that it seems more trouble than it is worth (to me at least).
I agree. I never saw the abuse they saw, but it does work like the book says. It is not an error.
|
|
It was a bad call of them to change how bonuses work so much. It was an understandable call, and I can't blame them for not foreseeing the consequences (and some things have been made simpler) but it was still a bad call.
I think it could have been a good call, if they instead of making a list of what it affects said "it works like an increased strength except" and then had a list of what it _doesn't_ affect.
That way the default would be that it works like a strength bonus and like 95% of the issues would be solved.
I pretty much agree with all of this - Paizo's intent was good, but implementation is what caused the issues.
|
|
So do SKR's comments count?
I think it's pretty clear from that what the intent is.
If SKR is the designer who wrote that section, or has consulted with that designer and is speaking on their behalf, then I guess it would be clear what the RAI are. If that is the case however it deserves errata because RAI does not align with RAW.
And I think this comes to part of the problem - Paizo isn't a single person, there are several designers and writers and I think some misinterpret or aren't aware of some of the changes other designers have made to the 3.5 ruleset (or aren't aware of changes during editing) and so you end up with stat blocks that don't use the RAW, but what that particular designer believes RAI is.
The 3.x ruleset is a large, complicated and interrelated beast and if you change one small piece it will likely have consequences elsewhere, when you make several such changes (e.g. Ability Penalties and changes to grappling) there are even greater consequences as the combinations of the changes cause other unforeseen issues.
So in short Paizo really took a number of chances with changing the 3.5 SRD rules and whilst they accounted for some consequences (getting rid of Cure Minor Wounds when making Cantrips At Will) there seem to be a lot more that they didn't.
Unfortunately Ability Penalties, Damage and Bonuses are used all over the rules (penalties when grappling, bonuses from spells, magic items etc) and so by choosing to change how they work Paizo inadvertently created ripples throughout the rules and overall I don't think the benefit anywhere near made up for the cost.
The rules team makes decisions together si wheb one of them says a rule works a. certain way it is umanimous.
|
|
So many things key off ability scores that ANY way you handle them is going to create illogical situations unless you've got exceptions built in to cover them.
That being said, like many people I find it far easier to treat temporary adjustments the same as permanent adjustments and deal with the conflicts created by that than vice versa.
Thus, I just house ruled away temporary increases being different and the '24 hour waiting period'. Ability changes impact everything immediately... at which point the only conflicts I've seen are with skill points (i.e. PCs shouldn't be able to get a couple ranks in any skill by temporarily boosting their Int), bonus spells per day (i.e. shouldn't temporarily gain or lose spells per day), and pre-requisites for feats and prestige classes (i.e. shouldn't be able to boost ability for a couple of minutes to qualify for a feat). However, each is easily handled with an exception.
|
|
Some of you are kind of missing the part where it says that the bonus (or penalty in the event of damage) is added to the statistic being affected, not tacked on at the end of the computation.
So in the situation of an 18 STR, the +2 from bull's strength is added to the +4 modifier from the 18 STR giving a +6...then you account for off-hand or two-handed or whatever.
|
|
Some of you are kind of missing the part where it says that the bonus (or penalty in the event of damage) is added to the statistic being affected, not tacked on at the end of the computation.
So in the situation of an 18 STR, the +2 from bull's strength is added to the +4 modifier from the 18 STR giving a +6...then you account for off-hand or two-handed or whatever.
It depends on whether you read the reference to adding to the statistic in context though.
For every two points of increase to a single ability, apply a +1 bonus to the skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
Emphasis is mine.
So we should look at what is listed with the relevant ability, in this case Strength...
Strength: Temporary increases to your Strength score give you a bonus on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The bonus also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and to your Combat Maneuver Defense.
For skills, its:
- Strength-based skill checksFor statistics, its:
- Melee Attack Rolls
- Weapon Damage Rolls (if they rely on Strength)
- CMB (if you are Small or larger)
- CMD
So, as the Strength Ability Modifier is not listed, I don't read it as included in what is referred to as "statistics". Weapon Damage Rolls are explicitly listed as a "statistic" and so by my reading of the RAW the bonus is applied to Weapon Damage Rolls unmodified by being off-hand or two handed.